January 27th, 2013, 03:30 AM
My own personal preference with this is - if I can get away with not having to carry another lens, much less one dedicated for macro (of which I don't do much of anyway), then I would.
I'm kinda lazy to change lenses just to snap a rare macro shot, so that's another reason why I'd much rather have a compact, and a compact can do a hell of a lot more than a dedicated macro lens too for the same money or less.
Plus, my main camera is a Leica RF which doesn't do macros anyway (although that is going to change with the new Leica M240) so that was another reason I was looking at a convenient compact that I can slip onto the photography bag.
January 27th, 2013, 03:32 AM
Well see for only a tiny bit more than the $300 100mm macro, I could get on to an S100 or S110, or an LX7 now. That's a pretty attractive deal for someone like me.
Originally Posted by Luckypenguin
January 27th, 2013, 08:37 AM
I use my HTC One S as magnifying glass as well as a 'macro lens'
Since Booka showed such a superb caterpillar for his GRD 3 here is a shot from my XZ-1
January 27th, 2013, 08:43 AM
I think the bottom line here James, is that one can use almost any camera to do some form of close-up photography as evidenced by all these cool shots. I think your idea of getting a serious compact to add to your arsenal INSTEAD of a dedicated macro lens sounds like the right fit for you.
January 27th, 2013, 11:43 AM
I will blame you if my brain subconsciously interprets that as reverse psychology. Next thing I know, I'll be out shopping for macro lenses.
Originally Posted by Luke
January 27th, 2013, 12:38 PM
Knowing it is about you, that definitely changes my response though I would still tell you to check the results of various cameras/lenses to make sure they can do what you want them to. You sound very enthusiastic about taking close-ups with a compact and burdened by the idea of having to carry a dslr, so a compact is probably an excellent choice for you. If you want to get closer you can always use your 7D then.. but for most purposes a compact should do the trick. I'll also add that while I love macro photography and generally use macro lenses, I have, often enough, stuffed the lens of my compact down the cup of a tulip or other flower doing fantastic shots of the pistil/stamen or the petal texture. Think of the lens enveloped in flower petals and you get the picture, and I got pictures. Not macros of a bugs eye in detail, but really lovely floral abstracts. Good luck with whatever you choose!
Originally Posted by TraamisVOS
January 27th, 2013, 12:52 PM
I have done a lot of that in the past, that's why I wasn't thinking of un-still macro photography. :)
Originally Posted by Isoterica
January 27th, 2013, 02:05 PM
I think we need to hear from the person wanting the lens. I can always chose a lens for myself, but that does not work for some one else.
The other problem is what do you mean by "macro." Just because a manufacturer stamps that word on a lens, it does not mean it is macro. And some people think close focus is macro and that is fine with them.
January 27th, 2013, 07:19 PM
I like the idea of a P&S option instead of a macro lens. In terms of what can be achieved with a P&S check out Mark Berkey's site: Macro Illustrated « Nature's Place. Some of that work was done with a Panny FZ50 & an achromatic lens adapter.
January 27th, 2013, 08:24 PM
Actually, looking through my Flickr, it looks like I have taken a few not-still-life macros with my LX5:
A spider above my front door with the moon in the background:
A spider in the house:
A fly on the wall:
Corydora catfish eggs with a female betta in the background:
Peppered corydora cafish:
A female betta having some breakfast:
Alpha female betta:
I like this crop of the photo above:
Male bristlenose catfish:
Last edited by TraamisVOS; January 27th, 2013 at 08:30 PM.
This site uses affiliate programs and referral links for monetization.